In speech to Planned Parenthood in July 2007, said he would sign Freedom of Choice Act to enshrine Roe in federal law

By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Barack Obama, the young, dynamic contender for the US Democratic presidential nomination, is continuing to send strong signals to members of his party that he is the strongest anti-life candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

At the last Democratic debate before the March 4 primary showdown in Texas and Ohio that could effectively decide the Democratic nominee, both Sen. Hillary Clinton - a fierce abortion supporter who is aspiring to be the first female president of the United States - and Sen. Obama - who is vying to be the first black US president - were asked which votes they would take back in their senatorial careers. Clinton cited her vote for the Iraq war; Obama said his vote for Terri Schiavo.

“It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake,” Obama said at the debate. “And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better ... and I think that's an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action.”

Obama was referring to his vote in March 2005, when the Senate passed a bill by unanimous consent that permitted Schiavo’s parents and brother to make their case before federal courts to keep their brain-injured daughter alive via feeding tube. Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael, who had guardianship over her while engaged in public adultery with a girlfriend, had a state judge remove her feeding tube, dehydrating her to death, because he claimed she never wanted to live in a so-called persistent vegetative state (PVS).

“Everyone with a disability, or who knows someone with a disability, should be outraged that a potential US president would so callously reject his own action taken in favor of life over death,” Terri's father, Robert Schindler said in a statement released to the press by the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation. “Is it so incredulous that a family had the ‘audacity of hope’ to believe its government would care about one profoundly disabled woman? It is a shame that Senator Obama, who claims to embody ‘hope,’ is crushing it for the families of people with profound disabilities.”

Obama has been riding a surge of support and enthusiasm among Democratic voters after having won 11 straight primary contests over Clinton. He leads the delegate count, and now seems poised to take the nomination from Clinton.

However, Obama has been seizing the mantle of the Democratic Party's pro-death wing, where once Clinton held an unassailable position as all-but crowned abortion nominee. Despite the fact that 10 influential feminists and leaders of the abortion movement endorsed Clinton last week, Frances Kissling, former president of the abortion advocacy group Catholics for Free Choice and dubbed the “philosopher of the pro-choice movement”, came out strongly in favor of Obama, saying that he, not Clinton was the better candidate to “complete the social transformation promised by Roe.” (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021910.html)

Obama has an extremely anti-life record that verges into the realm of condoning infanticide, including repeated votes during his career in the Illinois Senate against bills that would have protected babies that survived an abortion. Obama voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act numerous times on the basis that it might infringe on women's rights or abortionists’ rights.

“Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all the work that you are doing for women all across the country and for families all across the country-and for men, who have enough sense to realize you are helping them, all across the country,” Obama told supporters.

In a speech to Planned Parenthood activists in July 2007, Obama made clear that he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act to enshrine Roe in federal law, include Planned Parenthood in a universal health-care scheme, increase funding for sex-education and contraceptives, and select judges in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Pro-life advocates may discover that Barack Obama’s rhetorical abilities may make him a more powerful abortion president than the acrimonious Hillary Clinton, who, despite having more political accomplishments as First Lady and a US Senator for the abortion movement, has suffered considerably in the polls in part to her inability to overcome Obama’s charm and oratory skill.

“I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page,” Obama said in July. “We want a new day here in America. We're tired about arguing about the same ole’ stuff. And I am convinced we can win that argument.”

It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake, Obama said at the debate. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better ... and I think that's an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action.

Can anyone cite a time when this “candidate” admitted to a mistake? Audacity Indeed.

7
posted on 08/16/2008 9:38:42 AM PDT
by cpforlife.org
(A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at KnightsForLife.org)

In response to Obama’s statement that the U.S. Senate should not have intervened in the Schiavo Case, John McCain should promise to keep the House and Senate in session 365 days a year simply for the purpose of resolving family disputes over the life support of a family member.

In response to Obamas statement that the U.S. Senate should not have intervened in the Schiavo Case, John McCain should promise to keep the House and Senate in session 365 days a year simply for the purpose of resolving family disputes over the life support of a family member.

The Schiavo Savers simply do not understand, still, how much damage they caused to the GOP, and how much they are continuing to cause. Here's a penny for them to think about:

12
posted on 08/16/2008 9:44:56 AM PDT
by Jim Noble
(When He rolls up His sleeves, He ain't just puttin' on the Ritz)

As per O’bambi’s claim of ‘constituional law professor’, he is as dull as a hammer, proven by his claim that to recognize the personhood of an infant born alive following an attempted murder via abortion would be ‘anti-abortion’ because it would invoke the constitutional protections of the 14th Amendment. Suffice it to say this marxist slug doesn’t comprehend that the Constitution is not a ‘living document to be interpreted as sliding scale values choose to define it.’

13
posted on 08/16/2008 9:47:03 AM PDT
by MHGinTN
(Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)

I've made my thoughts clear on McCain. I don't like him. I think Jim Robinson said it quite well for me. I never considered voting for him during the primaries. But if McCain chooses a true Pro-Life running mate, yes, I will vote for him.

14
posted on 08/16/2008 9:47:05 AM PDT
by cpforlife.org
(A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at KnightsForLife.org)

Nobama: I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page, Obama said in July. We want a new day here in America. We're tired about arguing about the same ole stuff. And I am convinced we can win that argument.

“So ninties” Are civil rights So nineties because we want them restored to citizens waiting to be born?

“We're tired about arguing about the same ole stuff.” Because you can't win the argument. You loose the argument every time.

“same ole stuff.” Children are being murdered TODAY you sick barbarian.

21
posted on 08/16/2008 10:00:07 AM PDT
by cpforlife.org
(A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at KnightsForLife.org)

I've got to say there is absolutely, positively nothing, zero, nada that I like about Barrack Obama. It's been a long time since I've felt that way about a person.

I a convinced he is a Muslim and that his entire Christian persona is nothing but a charade. Muslims have so little regard for the truth that it wouldn't bother him at all to lie through his teeth about his beliefs. In fact, they consider it just fine to lie about anything as long as it's being done to further the cause of Islam.

I see absolutely nothing in this man's persona that says to me that he is Christian. The Bible gives a list of the fruits of the Spirit, and he displays none of them. As my mom used to say, if being a Christian were a crime he would be acquitted for lack of evidence.

It really goes against my grain to be so negative about someone, but he just does terrible things to my sense of what's right and what's wrong, and what would be good for America.

I am greatly distressed that so many Americans would give any thought at all to having him occupy the Oval Office. But I have no faith in polls, especially when they fly in the face of common sense.

Unfortunately, abortion remains perfectly legal, so that isn’t at issue. As for family disputes involving removing someone from life support, the Shiavo case was different because her husband was her guardian and it was argued that he did not have her best interests at heart because he would benefit if she died. I guess her case is a good reason to consider a living will or document stating if you do want to be kept alive. IMO, the judge in her case made very bad rulings and eventually congress decided to get involved. They were not mandated to, they chose to and I believe they did the right thing under the circumstances.

How proud* Sasha and Malia will be of their parents, when they're old enough to know what's going on. Unless, of course, they grow up to be brain-washed Marxist puppets like their parents - who are FOR the killing of children in the womb, and FOR the killing of brain-damaged people, and FOR all the other vile things that Democrats (Totalitarian Socialists) are for.

*sarcasm

38
posted on 08/16/2008 11:11:48 AM PDT
by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
(Roll over, Conservatives! The Liberals are on the march!!!)

Dogz is playing with you because it disdains pro-lifers. There is a thin facade of ‘protect the alive unborn’ but in the end the protection is a situational transaction not related to unalienable rights, as the poster’s vacuous-soul posts indicate. This poster has a template of why Terri should be put down and ignores any of the points regarding parents that wanted to care for Terri, any points that support she was not brain dead albeit severely retarded via neglect carried out over years by the very guardian a sick dead-soul judge protected. And there is so much more, but be advised there are dead-soul liars at FR who enjoy the anguish they can generate by insulting the very memory of Terri Schiavo.

40
posted on 08/16/2008 11:17:43 AM PDT
by MHGinTN
(Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)

Thank you. I was beginning to take it personally. At the time, I followed Terri’s case closely because I lived in Florida for many years. Under the circumstances, I still believe congress did the right thing getting involved. I feel very sorry for her family who loved her so much. Very sad story indeed.

IMHO, it was a failure by the Flordia Governor that ultimately killed Terri. Jeb failed to protect a dissabled citizen when the court system failed to function properly giving an unauthorized-to-order-a-death-sentence judge powers he must not have in our judicial system. If that isn’t a case for the chief lawenforcement officer of a state to forcefully step in and save an endangered citizen then there is none such. Jeb Bush was/is/will always be a cowardly feckless man. But that’s just my personal opinion, YMMV.

45
posted on 08/16/2008 11:32:36 AM PDT
by MHGinTN
(Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)

On many social issues, I may not be as conservative as some but I am strongly Pro Life and oppose abortion in all its forms.

My problem with the Schiavo case is that it was a far over reach of Federal Powers and provided Terri with protections of the Federal Government that have not been afforded others that were or are in a similar situation.

So, what is it that made Terri more Equal than others in the eyes of the Federal Government?

Should the U.S. Congress intervene in all cases where a family is in disagreement over the continued medical treatment of a family member? If not, why should those people not be afforded the rights under the Equal Protection Clause?

After all, Terri had the right to be the subject of a Special Session of Congress however, there are thousands of people in hospices at this very moment that will not have that same protection.

You're tripping over your own argument. Exceptions should not be used to argue for the rule but you turn your own argument on its head by arguing this as a special case where the Congress should not be involved. In simple point of fact, genius, the Congress has the Constitutional prerogative to involve itself as it sees fit, and that is the actual general rule. And that by the failure of the SCOTUS to limit in other cases where the opportunity to define Congressional limits as set by the Constitution have created bad precedent (mal stare decesis)

Nice try though, nice exposure for you ...

48
posted on 08/16/2008 11:52:50 AM PDT
by MHGinTN
(Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)

Of all the mistakes Obama has made in all fifty eight states, this is the worst? We heard her voice on tape— so far I don't recall that tape being discredited. Thus I can't help but conclude that she was legalistically murdered when her parents were willing to pay for her medical costs.

And the Man with the Air Pressure Plan thinks THIS was his biggest mistake?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.